I'm always amazed that a person having a child on the way and presumably about to incur lasting financial obligation is about to spend what seems to be such a hefty sum on a camera system to simply "take shots of said child" ... of course I have no idea how well positioned the OP is financially, but there is a little voice in the back of my head that wants to recommend something a lot less expensive ... how about $500 for a Panasonic LX 7 ??? Put the nearly $2000 in the savings account and do the right thing ....

there I said it

Even thou i tend to think that if you have the money I see no problem in buying a D4 even if you are a newbie, in this case i will completely agree with you. I haven't been a dad but can imagine and from what i seen my friends gone through is a time consuming event. so how are you going to get the time to learn to use the camera and carry that bulky thing everywhere you go. I had a friend that just ask me the same and i ended recommending him a nikon V1. Still can be find on a good price, image quality is more then good enough, and has fast focusing. Also fits right there on the diaper bag. What else do you need?

There's really only one thing you need a stop faster lens for, depth of field control.

This really shows your lack of understanding of the whole thing. It is not just about DOF, it is also about end resulting IQ which is a lot more important.

I own a D7000 and a D600, I use both behind a 70-200 f4 most regularly. So I should throw out the D7000 because the IQ is worse?

That would make you very silly wouldn't it?

If I solely took pictures in a cave maybe.

why would you need 70-200 F4 in a cave?

If I upgraded to a D7100, the subject of this thread, I'd really like you to explain to me how my images would be worse at 100mm on the d7100 than 150mm on the d600, other than the slight loss of subject isolation, which is irrelevant for my use anyways.

it is worse when you need certain SS to freeze the subject, and DOf is not an issue. at the same ISO as D600 will have better IQ and this advantage gets more apparent as you go up in ISO.

"straw men" argument is exactly what you are doing. you fail to understand that sensor size dicates IQ and it must be taken into consideration when comparing resulting IQ.

At elevated ISO, sure, at base ISO, I'd love for you to prove that assertion

Even if we assume there is no difference at base ISO - if IQ of X is better than IQ of Y sometimes and X is never worse than Y, then it is not incorrect to say IQ of X is better than IQ of Y.

But truth is there is still some difference at base ISO, see DXO for the difference. whether you care for that difference is another issue altogether.

In the technical ultimate image quality sense, yes, it is, because DX just plain can't compete at the top end. But in the "relevant to a thread where some guy asks do I buy a D7100 or a D600" sense, it's just an exercise in semantics.

No it is not. It is all about money for IQ. beyond the initial higher body price, the FF system offers more bang for the buck.

The initial body price being 1000 dollars more, and the more bang for the buck being if you shoot pictures in a cave or need razor thin DOF.

I know even you know such claim is pure absurdity. Are 24-140 3.5-5.6, 24-85 VR, 50 f1.8 and 85 F1.8 dedicated for caves or razor thin DOF?

As I said in my other post, if your argument was that persuasive DX lenses would be marked in 35mm equivalent focal lengths and apertures, or people would be clamoring to make them be marked as such because anything else is deceptive.

This argument is nonsensical. it would be inappropriate because Focal length is focal length. Furthermore there is no such a need because people who care will be smart enough to work out the equivalent FL and F-ratio, those who cannot work it out probably do not care anyway. god bless them just the same.

Focal length is focal length, aperture is aperture,

Good, so stop with this false advertising claim.

and I still haven't seen any real proof that even given the equivalencies FX is significantly cheaper lens for lens,

This thread is full of them, plenty of examples have been given by me and others. Unless you are completely blind you really cannot claim that you haven't seen any. At best you can claim you have a mental block that you are not convinced despite these evidence have been put before you. What is true is that so far you have not been able to disprove the validity of these proofs within this thread.

let alone considering the above "initial higher body price" which BEST CASE is 800 bucks or so more.

I bought my D600 4 month ago for 2000 bucks including over 100 bucks of accessory and a 500 dollar lens rendering the body cost around 1400 or less. For mm the "initial higher body price" compared to D7100 is about 200 bucks.

Perhaps you guys should get together and sue Canon and Nikon for false advertising.

There is no false advertising because neither ever claimed APS-C would perform the same as FF when using the same lens. However you could be sued for defamation for calling canon and nikon false advertising, and for misrepresenting APs-C performance with your fallacious claims that they equal to FF.

I never said APS-C performance is equal to FF. The post that started all of this said "FX lenses cost more" you two then propped up the argument "FX lenses don't cost more when you factor in performance of the camera they're attached to."

If yo acknowledge that APS-C performance does not equal to FF, then you would acknowledge that to get the same performance you would need a more expensive lens for aps-c or a cheaper lens for FF, if so when it is pretty clear that for the same given performance it may well cost less to buy lenses for FF. So where in this logical reasoning did you get stuck I honestly do not know.

Image brightness comes out the same, but the DX camera will show more noise. That's what we're talking about. To get the DX camera's noise performance up to a similar level, you'll have to double the exposure time with the DX camera, or use a lens that's a stop faster.

Well put. This is the very part that he just don't seem to get.

The fact that capturing area affects performance was well known by people shooting both medium format and 35 mm film - when you often could compare precisely the same level of "sensor" performance (but with different area), this became very evident. For some reason some photographers seem to belive this does not apply to modern day sensors. It still does.

And this is also why it - for a given level of image quality (resolution, DR, noise, etc) - generally speaking is not really more expensive to buy FX lenses then DX ones. Unless of course, one ignores obvious performance differences.

-- hide signature --

I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every moment of it!By the way, film is not dead.It just smell funny

MikeInIndy wrote: It's becoming clear that you guys are only interested in a numbers and technology game, rather than a realistic comparison of OUTPUT from these cameras. Last time I checked photography was about photos.

Everyone today appears to be off on this "just buy a killer FX camera" tangent instead of actually learning what photography is about, which is LIGHT.

This from the guy who says my D7000 needs twice the exposure time as my D600...

To get the same level of DR and noise from a sensor half as big you do need twice the exposure. The fact that you do not seem to grasp that very basic fact and at the same time rather pompously declare "photography is about LIGHT" makes it a bit hard to take your arguments seriously

Yes, photography is indeed about capturing light, the more the merrier, and one of the easiest ways of capturing more light is to use as large a capturing area as possible. Increasing the area mean you need less extreme lenses to achieve the same end result (a image of a given quality level).

If sensor area is - as you appear to claim - so irrelevant for DR, noise and other aspects of image quality, why do you even bother with DX and FX cameras instead of much smaller and ligher compact cameras?

-- hide signature --

I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every moment of it!By the way, film is not dead.It just smell funny

MikeInIndy wrote: It's becoming clear that you guys are only interested in a numbers and technology game, rather than a realistic comparison of OUTPUT from these cameras. Last time I checked photography was about photos.

Everyone today appears to be off on this "just buy a killer FX camera" tangent instead of actually learning what photography is about, which is LIGHT.

This from the guy who says my D7000 needs twice the exposure time as my D600...

To get the same level of DR and noise from a sensor half as big you do need twice the exposure. The fact that you do not seem to grasp that very basic fact and at the same time rather pompously declare "photography is about LIGHT" makes it a bit hard to take your arguments seriously

Yes, photography is indeed about capturing light, the more the merrier, and one of the easiest ways of capturing more light is to use as large a capturing area as possible. Increasing the area mean you need less extreme lenses to achieve the same end result (a image of a given quality level).

If sensor area is - as you appear to claim - so irrelevant for DR, noise and other aspects of image quality, why do you even bother with DX and FX cameras instead of much smaller and ligher compact cameras?

It's not irrelevant, it's just not nearly as relevant as you want it to be to prove your arguments. Below ISO 1600 the output of these two cameras is indistinguishable using a reasonable metric to assess them. Specifically, I base that on DXOMarks results, their ISO score is based on an ISO standard for assessing noise and ISO rating of sensor or film speed and a bar that is set for visually acceptable based on a 12x8 300 dpi print. The D7100 scores 1256, the D600 scores nearly 3000, that's where your stop of "better" comes into play. Until you get to ISO 1600 the D7100's image quality would still be considered excellent by normal people. To put it another way, pictures taken with both cameras with the same settings up to ISO 1600 will be for all purposes indistinguishable other than a difference in DOF, presuming one uses a 50% longer lens for FX. So again, your argument can only hang its hat on performance above ISO 1600, and DOF. You can beat the horse dead all you want, and point to numbers and formulas all day, but photography is still all about output. And again, I point you to the proof in the pudding, which is use THIS SITES STUDIO COMPARISON TOOL and compare the cameras at ISO 1600.

Both cameras are "good enough" at ISO 1600 and below (how did we get here?)

It's not irrelevant, it's just not nearly as relevant as you want it to be to prove your arguments. Below ISO 1600 the output of these two cameras is indistinguishable using a reasonable metric to assess them. Specifically, I base that on DXOMarks results, their ISO score is based on an ISO standard for assessing noise and ISO rating of sensor or film speed and a bar that is set for visually acceptable based on a 12x8 300 dpi print. The D7100 scores 1256, the D600 scores nearly 3000, that's where your stop of "better" comes into play. Until you get to ISO 1600 the D7100's image quality would still be considered excellent by normal people. To put it another way, pictures taken with both cameras with the same settings up to ISO 1600 will be for all purposes indistinguishable other than a difference in DOF, presuming one uses a 50% longer lens for FX. So again, your argument can only hang its hat on performance above ISO 1600, and DOF. You can beat the horse dead all you want, and point to numbers and formulas all day, but photography is still all about output. And again, I point you to the proof in the pudding, which is use THIS SITES STUDIO COMPARISON TOOL and compare the cameras at ISO 1600.

Yes, there's little difference between DX and FX at ISO 1600 and below, especially if you're downsizing for the web. But situations don't always permit you to stay at ISO 1600 and below, especially if you want to freeze action indoors. In a not-so-brightly-lit indoor room, you can easily hit ISO 6400 just to get 1/250s with a f/2.8 lens.

I find that about half my shots are taken above ISO 1600, and about half below. The D600 might only be slightly superior below ISO 1600, but above that, it really starts to pull away.

I used to use (and still have) a Sony a580 - an APS-C DSLR with a reputation for very good high ISO performance. It was pretty much clean up to ISO 1600. After that, files from the a580 became increasingly difficult to work with. When I got the D600, ISO 6400 on that camera pretty much moved to where ISO 1600 was before. In other words, an ISO 6400 file from the D600 felt as easy to work with (in terms of noise) as an ISO 1600 file from the a580. It's hard to describe how incredibly useful it is to have relatively clean images up to ISO 6400.

But anyways, bringing it back to the original point - I think the OP should go for a D90. Here's why:

Decent AF performance - will probably track little kids very well. Hit rate might be lower than what a D600 or D7100 will deliver, but I've used a D3100 to photograph sports before, and it wasn't unusable.

Decent IQ - that old sensor still delivers usable IQ even at pretty high ISOs, as long as you carefully process in raw and don't try to crop or view at 100%.

Low price on used market - $500 or so. That really changes the cost equation, because the difference between $1200 and $1600 doesn't seem like enough to separate the D600 and D7100. With the D90, in some cases you can get FX-equivalent IQ (at least DOF wise) for the same price. (D90 + 17-55/2.8 ~= D600 + 24-85/3.5-4.5)

It's not irrelevant, it's just not nearly as relevant as you want it to be to prove your arguments.

It is no more and or less relevant to the current argument - for the same IQ, you pay less for FF lens. lets stick tot he 16--85 vs 24-120 and 17-55 vs 24-85 example. you have made no concrete argument against this point.

Below ISO 1600 the output of these two cameras is indistinguishable using a reasonable metric to assess them.

What is more correct is D7100 iso 1250 and D600 ISO 3000 are indistinguishable.. thus you can afford to use cheaper lenses.

Specifically, I base that on DXOMarks results, their ISO score is based on an ISO standard for assessing noise and ISO rating of sensor or film speed and a bar that is set for visually acceptable based on a 12x8 300 dpi print. The D7100 scores 1256, the D600 scores nearly 3000, that's where your stop of "better" comes into play.

good to see you understanding half of the argument.

Until you get to ISO 1600 the D7100's image quality would still be considered excellent by normal people.

But that is not the point is it? the point is D600 provides the same quality at 2.5 times the ISO.

To put it another way, pictures taken with both cameras with the same settings up to ISO 1600 will be for all purposes indistinguishable other than a difference in DOF, presuming one uses a 50% longer lens for FX.

firstly, they may well be distingquishable. secondly the real issue is D7100 iso 1250 and D600 ISO 3000 are indistinguishable. That is why you can get away with cheaper lenses.

So again, your argument can only hang its hat on performance above ISO 1600, and DOF.

DXO's sports score is actually biased in favour of d7100 because with its smaller pixels, resolution reduces faster at high ISO is faster than larger pixels of D600. But DXO sports score does not reflect this reality because tests are done on a resized 8mp image. Here is comparison of D7100 at iso 800 vs D600 at iso 3200. resolution wise they are indistinguishable.

Lets first answer the question, Which one has more reach - D800 or D300s?

The D800 of course. And I know what your point here is: you can use DX lenses with a D800 and get better output than from a D300 (and about equal output than from a D7000), and thus by definition lenses for the D800 (and thus FF) are not more expensive than DX lenses because the lenses are the same.

And the answer to this obviously is that very few users do this because it removes the three reasons to go to full frame (ie, you would have paid for FF and then not use it):

Better base ISO performance / more MP

Better low light performance aka shallower DOF

Larger viewfinder

And you could extend that reasoning to saying that my argument that FX lenses are more expensive than DX lenses because there are no really slow FX lenses is rather irrelevant because very few would want to get those really slow lenses because it would negate the reasons people went to FF (see above). But look closely, using slow FX lenses only negates the second reason, reason one and two still remain.

That is my first reason (A): Overall, you cannot get to FF and only have advantage No. (1) and (3), you also get some of advantage No. (2) because there are no really slow FX lenses. And because there are no really slow FX lenses, the cheapest FX lenses for a particular focal length (FOV, actually) are more expensive than the corresponding (FOV) DX lenses.

My second reason is the one I stated in my first post in this thread (B): A lot of the appeal of FX is reason No. (2) (low light/DOF), thus going FF results in more expensive lenses because people go to FF to get better low light performance and lower DOF. It's like saying that tires for a Ferrari are more expensive than for a Fiat, yes, technically you can use a Fiat's tires on a Ferrari (using DX lenses or just lenses with the same equivalent f-stop) but nobody does this. Going FF results in more expensive lenses because most people went FF in order to being able to use more expensive lenses (fully).

Thus, when you make the decision to go to FF, you also make the decision to get more expensive lenses. Therefore the overall system cost of FF is not just the more expensive body but also the more expensive lenses. People who say they go to FF but won't spend more on lenses are mostly kidding themselves.

Then there are people who does not know what the consensus is but follows one not because they thnk it is right but because they think it is the consensus. I don't hate them, hate is too strong, I pity them.

There usually is a consensus because most issues are not that complicated and thus most people get it. For some reason you have drawn some peculiar boundary conditions that result in you coming up with a result that runs counter the consensus. The real question here is why you have drawn those boundary conditions. Something irked you about the consensus and consciously or subconsciously you have created conditions that allow you contradict the consensus?

The D800 of course. And I know what your point here is: you can use DX lenses with a D800 and get better output than from a D300 (and about equal output than from a D7000), and thus by definition lenses for the D800 (and thus FF) are not more expensive than DX lenses because the lenses are the same.

Good to see you understand the reasoning but your conclusion is not quite 100% tight. it should read:

and thus by definition lenses for the D800 (and thus FF) are not more expensive provide more reach than D300 (a DX) lenses because Reach is not subject to crop but subject to pixel density the lenses are the same.

And the answer to this obviously is that very few users do this because it removes the three reasons to go to full frame (ie, you would have paid for FF and then not use it):

Better base ISO performance / more MP

Better low light performance aka shallower DOF

Larger viewfinder

And you could extend that reasoning to saying that my argument that FX lenses are more expensive than DX lenses because there are no really slow FX lenses is rather irrelevant because very few would want to get those really slow lenses because it would negate the reasons people went to FF (see above). But look closely, using slow FX lenses only negates the second reason, reason one and two still remain.

That is my first reason (A): Overall, you cannot get to FF and only have advantage No. (1) and (3), you also get some of advantage No. (2) because there are no really slow FX lenses. And because there are no really slow FX lenses, the cheapest FX lenses for a particular focal length (FOV, actually) are more expensive than the corresponding (FOV) DX lenses.

you argument is incorrect because:

i. you ignore the existence of slow FF lenses and they they exist in vast quantity, and

ii. they they are much cheaper than DX lenses for the same or similar performance, and

iii. that people would buy them, therefore

iv. your conclusion is wrong.

Lets look at the facts, one example that has been mentioned many times here is 24-85VR vs 17-55. the 24-85 is provides similar speed (factor sensor size difference) and range, has VR for bonus and is 2/5 the price. a couple of other expample which have also been raised several times are 24-120 3.5-5.6 vs 16-85, 28-85 vs 18-55. there are many more.

You argue people do not buy them, that is clearly false. I bought the 24-85VR, and if it did nto exist I would have bought the older 24-85G or 24-85D or the 24-120. I bought FF because I wanted to use some of the good primes, a walk around zoom is just a walk around zoom, I do not need it to be in top quality. as long as its output IQ matched what I got from my Canon 17-55 IS I was OK.

Note I am saving even more with 50 F1.8, I always wanted a fast normal lens. On APS-C the closest was 35 F1.4. I was not going to pay that kind money. the 50 F1.8G is about 1/8 the price of 35L or 35 F1.4G. I did not save much on 85 F1.8G compared to the 50 F1.4 USM (which I would have to buy if I wanted similar FOV and speed) but the 85 F1.8G on FF is vastly superior to 50 F1.4 on aps-c.

My second reason is the one I stated in my first post in this thread (B): A lot of the appeal of FX is reason No. (2) (low light/DOF), thus going FF results in more expensive lenses because people go to FF to get better low light performance and lower DOF. It's like saying that tires for a Ferrari are more expensive than for a Fiat, yes, technically you can use a Fiat's tires on a Ferrari (using DX lenses or just lenses with the same equivalent f-stop) but nobody does this. Going FF results in more expensive lenses because most people went FF in order to being able to use more expensive lenses (fully).

You are right low light and DOF is one of the appeals for buying FF but you are incorrect in assuming that it is always more expensive - it is not - refer to my example of 50 F1.8 vs 35 F1.4, FF router provides shallow DOF, better low light and cost 1/8 the money; Or the 85G example, FF route cost the same money but again provides better high iso and shallower DOF. You post is also incorrect in assume people must have better low light and shallower DOF for every lens they buy. As I pointed out that is not the case. I (and i am sure there are others as well) are quite happy to settle for "not significantly better than APS-C" in some uses.

Thus, when you make the decision to go to FF, you also make the decision to get more expensive lenses. Therefore the overall system cost of FF is not just the more expensive body but also the more expensive lenses. People who say they go to FF but won't spend more on lenses are mostly kidding themselves.

See, you say this as if those who buy FF are aliens whom we must guess their motives. These people are us, right here. they include me and a bunch other and we are telling you that we are already saving money on lens.

Then there are people who does not know what the consensus is but follows one not because they thnk it is right but because they think it is the consensus. I don't hate them, hate is too strong, I pity them.

There usually is a consensus because most issues are not that complicated and thus most people get it.

Clearly not the case here.

For some reason you have drawn some peculiar boundary conditions that result in you coming up with a result that runs counter the consensus.

What is the "peculiar boundary conditions" you are referring to?

The real question here is why you have drawn those boundary conditions.

The real question here is why you have made up the existence of these boundaries?

Something irked you about the consensus and consciously or subconsciously you have created conditions that allow you contradict the consensus?

There is no consensus, there was a frivolous but not well thought-out idea by some that FX system ought to cost more. It has been debunked thoroughly and convincingly here. Some with an unexplainable mental block still do not accept the facts despite of them being presented before their eyes over and over.

Of course, I recommend D600, which will be wonderful for shooting sports and wildlife. It's also easy to be used hand-held with slower shutter speeds. However, you should take into account that you will have to adjust settings a lot to make beautiful images (so, if you're newbie and just only want to shoot JPEGs, it couldn't be a good choice). And you can reference here to see the price, about 2000 bucks: http://topcamera.org/nikon-d600-24-3-mp-cmos-fx-format-digital-slr-camera-body-only/. If you can find anywhere with lower price, please share since I'm also in need to buy one for my father. Good luck guys.

If it wasn't obvious, I only considered lenses that can be bought new, that all had AF and where available I only considered the versions of lenses with AF-S and VR/OS. There are enough people who only buy new and once you allow for used lenses, you are really opening a can of worms because there is such a vast array of options with difficult to obtain prices and such big differences in quality and features. And we all know that old WA often do poorly on digital, so instead of getting into an unsolvable argument over which lens is better (or equivalent), just drawing a simple line and restricting oneself to only what is available as new is the cleanest way to deal with this issue.

Except for two prime comparisons, I always compared a lens with VR with a lens with VR and a lens with AF-S with a lens with AF-S.

And the same applies for bodies, once you allow for used equipment, you can really very fast start to compare apples with oranges. I mean what is the price difference between DX and FX bodies once you add all the used models? Any comparison will be flawed.

If it wasn't obvious, I only considered lenses that can be bought new, that all had AF and where available I only considered the versions of lenses with AF-S and VR/OS. There are enough people who only buy new and once you allow for used lenses, you are really opening a can of worms because there is such a vast array of options with difficult to obtain prices and such big differences in quality and features. And we all know that old WA often do poorly on digital, so instead of getting into an unsolvable argument over which lens is better (or equivalent), just drawing a simple line and restricting oneself to only what is available as new is the cleanest way to deal with this issue.

However, when you're merely talking about getting to a certain focal length and throw equivalent image quality out the window, one of FX's biggest advantages is having a huge selection of used lenses from the film area. Most of those lenses give very good image quality when used on full frame (which is what they're designed for).

"Old WA often do poorly on digital"...well, maybe an old $100 UWA won't give the corner performance of a new $700 DX UWA, but being cheaper is the point. If you want awesome FX UWA performance, that can be had for $300 with a Samyang 14/2.8. No AF, but you don't need AF because pretty much everything will be in focus anyways.

And if you want to take IQ into consideration, you have to take the superior noise performance of FX sensors into account. The D600 is more than a stop ahead, so when you're not in bright sunlight, it's like having a lens that's a stop faster.

Except for two prime comparisons, I always compared a lens with VR with a lens with VR and a lens with AF-S with a lens with AF-S.

And the same applies for bodies, once you allow for used equipment, you can really very fast start to compare apples with oranges. I mean what is the price difference between DX and FX bodies once you add all the used models? Any comparison will be flawed.

Even factoring in a $400 price difference between the D600 and D7100, FX can still be cheaper in some circumstances. It's a wash.